Category: Opinion

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform – February 7, 2024

Root cause and root cause analysis. I strongly believe these two terms are unknown to many elected officials and our population as a whole. Why else do legislative bodies revisit the same issues over and over again, never really solving anything?

Whether the issue has either a national or local impact, whether it’s border security, gun violence, school choice, voting rights, taxes, or anything else that impact our communities, it appears lawmakers can only think of going to the cabinet and getting a band aid. While the band aid stops the bleeding momentarily, it doesn’t prevent us from getting cut again, bleeding, and needing another band aid. Maybe this is because fixing the immediate is gratifying, giving a sense of accomplishment. Maybe it’s because the belief is this is how you solve a problem. Either way, nothing is ever truly fixed.

Most people want problems resolved so the likelihood of them recurring is non-existent or at least minimal. Accomplishing this is not easy. It can take time. There are courses that teach the steps, that’s how difficult and confusing it can be. But the rewards are often worth the time.

Perhaps a total mind-set change is needed. It’s not uncommon for elected officials to have a background as a lawyer. Lawyers, by the very nature of their work, are not focused on a permanent solution. Each case is a new problem requiring its own solution. They want, in fact, need the problem to occur often as their livelihood depends on it. Could that be part of the problem?

On the other hand, think about the issues facing our communities. Wouldn’t it be nice to find a real solution for the many issues facing our children? How good would it be if we could find a permanent fix to affordable housing and homelessness? How about taxes? Our immigration system, and the gun debate?

Think of root cause as the roots of a tree. Without its root structure, a tree does not survive. If there is no root cause, is there a real problem or just a symptom of a deeper issue? Root cause is what gives an issue life. It is the cause from which all other symptoms develop. Solve for the root cause and the likelihood of the problem coming back is virtually non-existent.

Root cause analysis is the process used to find the root cause. There are different methods; asking “why” until you can’t.

            Schools are failing our children. Why?

            Because we’re not teaching the right things. Why?

            Because teachers are not teaching. Why?

            Because the students don’t listen. Why?

Maybe the first question should be what do we expect from our educational system.

            There’s too much gun violence. Why?

            Because guns are too available. Why?

            Because people have mental health issues. Why?

Maybe the first question should be what has changed in society to make using a gun the default option to solve a personal dispute.

The list can go on and on.

On immigration perhaps starting with why do people sneak across our borders or overstay their visas would help us find a real solution.

If elected officials understood root cause and root cause analysis, perhaps we, their constituents, our cities, counties, state, and nation would be better served. What if the approval authority; mayor, governor, president, required a root cause analysis and a statement on how the legislation solves the problem accompany the bill to have it considered for signature. No root cause, veto. Of course, this may mean each bill would have to address only a single subject, no bills including related or unrelated topics. I touched on that before.

Assuming this happens, elected officials have to be willing to collaborate on proposing and passing legislation to implement solutions. This means leaving what has become the status quo of talking points and party loyalty behind in favor of doing what is best for those who they represent. This means the system that drives behavior has to change.

Nevadans have a unique opportunity this November to make such a change. A change that shakes up the status quo and provides elected officials the incentive to collaborate and solve problems in order to get elected or reelected rather than just appeal to a narrow so-called party base. The results are proven. Voters just need to pass Question 3 on the November 2024 ballot.

What if:

1. Voters repealed NRS241.016 2(a) the legislature’s exemption from open meeting law.

• Legislature chamber rules could not be suspended.

• The Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) was required to evaluate each bill draft request (BDR) for duplication then required to notify the legislators involved to reconcile their bills. One bill per topic. A legislator could co-sponsor. Sponsors of duplicate bills would have to provide a reason in writing to the governor justifying duplication.

• Single subject rule applied to legislation. No omnibus bills.

• Legislation must actually solve a problem, have a formal problem statement / root cause analysis, and a statement of how the legislation solves the root cause.

• All meetings started on time and floor sessions were moved to 6:00 PM (last item of the day) as the public does not have input.

• Bills to conduct a study had to include a statement clearly describing what the potential problem being investigated is and why the study is necessary.

• Bills honoring people, naming a building, naming a state animal, plant, etc could not be heard until action on all other bills is completed.

• All bills had to be submitted per statute timeline and emergency bills had to be approved by both the majority and minority leaders of both chambers.

1. Every bill had to include how the bill would be implemented, how and who was responsible for implementation, and a specific date by which implementation must be complete.

1. Bills had to be written with enough specifics so legislative intent was clear and not open to different judicial interpretations.

1. The governor made meeting these standards a criteria for signing or vetoing bills.

The 120-day legislative session is actually 89 days when legislators are in the building. There must be a real discussion about either lengthening the session or going to annual sessions.

The public must demand that legislators collaborate on problems facing the state. They must make this apparent with their votes.

What if?

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform – January 27, 2023

As we head in to the 2023 Nevada legislative session, I wanted to put out a few random thoughts.

November saw the first passage of Question 3, an amendment to the Nevada constitution that, if passed by the voters a second time in 2024, will replace our current closed primary system with a top-five nonpartisan open primary and ranked choice voting in the general election. Nevada voters are ready to take control of their elections again as evidenced by 53 percent of voters voting “yes”. Look for the campaign to focus on clarifying just how simple and easy the proposed Final Five Voting process is and how the process benefits all Nevadans.

What about the election just completed.

Just under 55 percent of active registered voters cast ballots. This is about average for mid-term elections, but disappointing given mail ballots were sent to all active voters. Since Nevada still maintains in-person voting, the question of cost benefit has to asked. Assembly Bill 321 (AB 321) approved by the legislature last session making the temporary system of mailing ballots to all active voters put in place for the 2020 election due to COVID did not include any money for voter education. The result was voter confusion as shown by the number of ballots that were either returned, rejected, or in need of correction (curing). It is important to note that prior to 2020, Nevada had no excuse absentee voting, anyone could request a mail ballot. In 2019 a major change that allowed a voter to be placed on a permanent list to receive a mail ballot for all elections instead of having to submit a new request for each election was enacted.

Mailing ballots to all voters has become a hot-button issue whether deservedly so or not. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) rated Nevada 13^th following the 2020 election for election administration, meaning we are doing things right.

Perhaps going back to the pre-AB 321 process and using the money required to mail ballots to all, some $14 million, to address some of the valid issues; voter roll maintenance and voter education is worth considering.

The level of emotion connected with all mail ballots also inspired some counties to propose going back to hand-marked paper ballots and manual counting of the votes. This is allowed under current election statute (NRS293B.050). However, the legislature has ordered the secretary of state to change the voter registration and voter roll maintenance process to one controlled by the secretary of state instead of the individual counties (top-down instead of bottom-up) Instead of each county reporting to the secretary of state, the secretary of state would provide the data to the counties. Given this change, the state cannot risk having 17 different voting and tabulation processes. To keep the process standardized and therefor more efficient and accurate, something I believe is supported by both Democratic and Republican voters alike, the law allowing counties to use different methods needs to be changed so all counties use the same voting and tabulation methods.

Another hot-button issue is requiring voters to show valid identification to vote. Is this a solution looking for a problem? Yes. Does the issue impact the legislature from solving other, more   important issues? Yes. Is there a fix that could remove this issue and its effect on our political environment? Yes.

Polls suggest that most voters, whether a proponent of voter ID requirements or not, would not object to showing an ID to vote. The proposals being presented this session will include a wide variety of acceptable identification documents all centered around the documents required to be presented to register to vote. For those lacking any of the numerous acceptable identification county clerks or registrar of voters would provide a voting identification free of charge.

Because of the partisan emotion surrounding the issues of mail ballots and voter ID, it is unlikely bills presenting potential solutions will advance. Food for thought, shouldn’t we try to remove obstacles to progress rather than strengthening walls? What would happen if pragmatism won out over partisanship?

During this last election cycle, all election administration offices saw key people and staff leave. Going into 2023, both the Clark and Washoe county registrar of voters is new. The secretary of state and county election offices are trying to hire new staff and have them trained in time for the February 2024 presidential preference primary; there will be three elections in 2024. Educating voters to this fact will play a major role impacting turnout for the state primary in June. Hopefully the required funds will be approved by the legislature.

Random thoughts.

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform – January 15, 2021

Ever wonder how many votes it takes to win an election? If you are running for office in Nevada, not as many as you may think.

Since 2016, 23 candidates have been elected to either the state legislature or county-wide positions with as little as five percent (5%) of the voters in their district. If you are confused, wondering how this could happen or if in fact it is legal, continue reading.

Prior to 2015 if either only the Democratic or Republican Party had candidates for a partisan office; if Democratic candidates and no Republican, minor party, or Non-Partisan candidates, if Republican candidates and no Democratic, minor party, or Non-Partisan candidates, the top two candidates in the primary would go on the general election ballot so all voters could vote for their preferred candidate. Under our current election process this is the way it should be,

This changed during the 2015 legislative session. Under SB499, under the conditions outlined above, the winner of the primary (keep in mind Nevada uses closed primaries where only members of the party are allowed to vote), goes on the general election ballot unopposed. This means they were elected in the primary where less than 30 percent (30%) of party members bother to vote and non-party members; a clear majority of voters in any given district had no say.

If we look at the 2016, 2018, and 2020 election cycle, the 23 candidates that were elected with an average of 15 percent of the vote of party members and seven (7) percent of the vote of all voters in their district. This is not only unfair to voters but also to the winning candidate who hardly has a mandate of their constituents.

2016
Dist	Candidate	Party	# Candidates	Winning vote	Total votes	Total Party Reg	T/O	Total Reg	% Party	% dist
SD4	Atkiinson	D	2	3,926	5,892	27,424	21.48%	66,828	14.32%	5.87%
AD13	Anderson	R	3	1,738	2,796	14,258	19.61%	34,721	12.19%	5.01%
AD19	Edwards	R	2	1,960	3,203	12,156	26.35%	31,256	16.12%	6.27%
AD26	Krasner	R	2	3,448	6,232	20,324	30.66%	44,439	16.97%	7.76%
						Avg	24.53%		14.90%	6.23%
2018
SD10	Cancela	D	2	2,854	4,725	25,533	18.51%	52,311	11.18%	5.46%
AD24	Peters	D	4	1,780	3,784	14,719	25.71%	32,599	12.09%	5.46%
AD33	Ellison	R	2	4,175	5,375	17,052	31.52%	30,701	24.48%	13.60%
AD42	Assefa	D	3	1,399	2,529	11,590	21.82%	24,875	12.07%	5.62%
ClK DA	Wolfson	D	2	54,347	97,306	419,042	23.22%	996,375	12.97%	5.45%
Churchill Clk	Rothery	R	2	2,273	3,107	13,264	23.42%	29,471	17.14%	7.71%
Douglas Assessor	Tholen	R	2	4,222	8,226	18,147	45.33%	33,452	23.27%	12.62%
Eureka Clk	Hoehne	R	2	266	444	690	64.35%	974	38.55%	27.31%
Lincoln DA	Frehner	R	2	502	815	1,654	49.27%	2,774	30.35%	18.10%
Lyon Treas	Bryan	R	2	4,249	5,383	17,268	31.17%	34,349	24.61%	12.37%
Nye Admin	Stumne	R	2	3,268	4,735	13,289	35.63%	27,813	24.59%	11.75%
Pershing Assessor	Basso-Cerini	R	2	472	688	1,318	52.20%	2,424	35.81%	19.47%
Storey DA	Langer	R	2	458	846	1,562	54.16%	3,085	29.32%	14.85%
White Pine Clk	Baldwin	R	2	553	1,008	2,268	44.44%	4,488	24.38%	12.32%
						Avg	24.16%		14.56%	7.12%
2020
SD7	Lange	D	3	3,672	9,596	31,605	30.36%	68,932	11.62%	5.33%
AD19	Black	R	2	3,803	6,231	15,570	40.02%	40,050	24.43%	9.50%
AD20	Orentlicher	D	4	2,299	4,947	15,215	32.51%	33,821	15.11%	6.80%
AD36	Hafen	R	2	4,851	8,841	22,265	39.71%	48,594	21.79%	9.98%
AD38	Titus	R	2	6,780	8,736	22,436	38.94%	43,057	30.22%	15.75%
						Avg	36.31%		20.63%	9.47%
						overall Avg	28.33%		16.70%	7.61%

There were several county commission races impacted as well, however, because it is more difficult to find the voter registration data by district, they are not included.

Two attempts to correct this voter suppression measure were made, one during the 2017 legislative session (by the same sponsor of the original bill), the other during the 2019 session. The first bill did not get a hearing. The second bill passed the assembly but did not get a senate committee vote. Legislative majority in the three sessions involved: 2015 Republican, 2017 and 2019 Democratic.

Given the legislature does not want to reverse the voter suppression it has implemented, it is up to the voters. This is why passage of the Better Voting Nevada initiative, that will implement Final Five Voting (FFV) where the right of all voters to cast ballots in the primary regardless of party is guaranteed and then vote for the top five candidates indicating their ranked preference for each allowing voters to vote their conscience, is critical.

AB 126 to replace the major party caucuses with a presidential preference primary was introduced on Feb 15, 2021. The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Jason Frierson, Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, and Assemblywoman Brittney Miller.

The primary will be used to “…determine the preferences of the registered voters of a major political party regarding the party’s nominee for President of the United States.” (Sec.1)

Delegates selected by the party to their national convention “…must reasonably reflect the   results of the presidential preference primary election if one has been held for the party.” (Sec. 5)

The bill requires the primary to be the first nominating event in the among the 13 western states. (Sec. 43) It will actually be the first in the nation.

Clearly, the intent is for Nevada to have a major impact on the nomination process of both major political party presidential candidates.

Section 1 of the bill clearly states the winner should reflect the preference of the registered voters of each party. I’m sure the desire and priority of the party is for the party’s nominee to have the broadest support, to unite the party behind the candidate, and to avoid intra-party conflict during the nominating process.

Section 5 clearly directs the party to select delegates to their national convention who represent that preference.

However, given the timing of the primary and the potential for numerous candidates at that particular time in the process, Section 46 of the bill creates a high likelihood that the winner of the primary; the winner of the state’s national convention delegates, will actually be a candidate with a small plurality of primary votes not meeting the desired outcome of Section 1; “Such a registered voter may vote for only one qualified candidate on the ballot as the voter’s preference for the nominee for President of the United States for the party.”

The Nevada Democratic Party was highly successful in overcoming this potential outcome during the early voting process of the nominating caucus last February. Party members were allowed to rank their candidate preferences in order, ensuring, should their preferred candidate not be viable, their voice would still be heard. Party members who participated in caucus early voting overwhelmingly liked this system and found it easy. Using a similar process in a crowded primary field would ensure the goal or section 1 would be achieved.

Please contact Speaker Frierson; via email Jason.frierson@asm.state.nv.us or phone  
775-684-8537 and urge him, in the name of party unity and cohesion, to allow party members to rank candidates in order of preference so the winner of the primary (and the state’s delegates) truly reflect the desire of a majority of party voters.

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

On May 23, 2020, in less than ten weeks, voters in Nevada will start casting ballots in the 2020 primary election. Overall, they will be voting in 271 races, deciding between 671 candidates.

Since there are no major state-wide offices on the ballot; U.S. senator, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, controller, turnout will most likely be less than 20 percent. Very few voters will be selecting the candidates to advance to a high turnout general election or in some cases, deciding the winner of the office. In races with more than three candidates, the winner or winners (where more than one candidate advances) will more than likely advance with a small plurality of the vote with more voters casting ballots for other candidates.

In all elections, Nevada determines the winner(s) using the first past the post (FPTP) method. The candidate with the most votes wins. In races where there are more than two candidates, this can mean the winning candidate(s) receive as low as 20 to 25 percent of the vote. In a low turnout election, this could translate into less than 10 percent of the voters eligible to vote.

The Nevada Democratic Party just used and validated a better way. During the early voting period of the presidential caucus, voters ranked the candidates in order of preference. In a very informal poll, over 90 percent of those responding found the process easy and over 80% liked being able to vote this way. Media has also commented positively on the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the caucus.

In addition to allowing voter to express their preference among all candidates in all elections when there are more than two candidates, RCV results in a winner with a majority or at the very least a large plurality of the votes. When more than one winner is required in a given race, RCV provides winners whose vote tally cannot be exceeded by other candidates.

271 races, 671 candidates.

Of the 271 races being contested in the June primaries, 32.1 percent (87 races) will most likely have the winner receiving a small plurality of the votes cast. There will be more votes cast against the winner than for. This is no way for a democracy to work.

Partisan races where RCV would benefit:

CD1 Democratic and Republican primary

CD2 Democratic primary

CD3 Democratic and Republican primary

CD4 Democratic and Republican primary

AD2 Democratic and Republican primary

AD5 Republican primary

AD16 Democratic primary

AD18 Democratic primary

AD31 Republican primary

AD37 Republican primary

AD40 Democratic and Republican primary

Clark County Commission A Democratic primary

Clark County Commission C Democratic primary

Clark County Commission D Democratic primary

Storey County Commission 1Republican primary

Nye County Commission 1 Democratic primary

Nye County Commission 3 Democratic primary

Nonpartisan races where RCV would benefit:

State Board of Education 1

State Board of Education 3

Board of Regents 2

Board of Regents 3

Board of Regents 5

Board of Regents 10

Clark County School District A

Clark County School District B

Clark County School District C

Clark County School District E

Washoe County School District A

Washoe County School District D

Washoe County School District At Large

Churchill County School Board

Nye County School Board VI

Reno City Council 1

Reno City Council 3

Reno City Council 5

Reno City Council At Large

Sparks City Council 1

Sparks City Council 3

Carson City Mayor

Carson Supervisor 2

Carson Supervisor 4

Crescent Valley Town Board

Amargosa Town Board

Incline Village GID

Palomino GID

Gardnerville GID

Indian Hills GID

Round Hill GID

Skyland GID

Topaz GID

Verdi TV District

Moapa Water District Longdale

Moapa Water District Overton

Laughlin Town Board

Tahoe Douglas Fire District

Minden Sanitation

There are also 94 judicial races. Of those 26 have three or more candidates (85 candidates).

There are several ways in which Nevada could implement RCV:

• In any primary contest with more than two candidates with a single winner
• Multi-winner RCV if using top-two, top-three, top-four primary
• In any general election race with more than two candidates including races the result of a top-three or top-four primary
• Give county and city governments to authority to implement RCV by ordinance
• Forego publicly funded primaries and hold only a general election using RCV. This was proposed in our Greater Choice Greater Voice initiative.
• For presidential primaries either winner take all or multi-winner

The 2021 Nevada legislative session can fix the state’s elections making them truly representative of not only the voters of Nevada but also allowing candidates and elected officials to be comfortable in knowing they truly have a mandate of those they represent.

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

On January 1, 2020, three very important changes to voting took effect in Nevada; automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and the ability for voters to request an absentee ballot for all elections.

The result of an initiative petition in 2016, automatic voter registration (AVR) was passed by the legislature in 2017. However, a veto by Governor Sandoval sent the question to the voters in 2018. The initiative requires the Secretary of State and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish a process where a person is either registered to vote or their voter registration information updated when they conduct a transaction at the DMV unless they opt out in writing. Voters approved the process, 60 percent to 40 percent requiring the legislature to pass any necessary legislation to implement the measure. The resulting sections of AB 345 should be taken as a “lesson learned” of the need for initiatives to be specific, not allowing for any legislative tinkering before the statutory three-year prohibition.

I am certain voters made a valid assumption when they both signed the initiative petition and voted that “automatic” meant that when they finished their transaction with the DMV clerk, nothing else was required. Unless they opted out, they were either registered to vote or their information was updated. The language of AB 345 proved this assumption wrong. Based on the implementing legislation, the process is not automatic. Rather than the process being finished with the DMV representative performing the transaction, the voter is given a form that has two conflicting purposes. First, the form will serve as the legal opt out form. Secondly, the form will serve as the mechanism for the voter to select a political party (failure to select a political party will result in the voter being registered as Non-Partisan). Both sections require a signature. The voter is then required to deposit the form in a drop box located in a different location of the DMV office. Confusing? Yes. Creating the possibility that a voter will opt out accidently? Yes. Too time-consuming resulting in voters not completing the process? Yes.

With the additional steps, AVR has simply become an opt-out versus the old opt-in process. “Automatic”? Not really. An improvement? Maybe.

AB 345 also provides that voters can register or update their current voter registration at the polls either during early voting or on election day and then cast their ballots on the same day (Same-day Voter Registration – SDR). In order to ensure only those eligible to vote are registered, voters will be given provisional ballots. If, after election day, it is determined the voter is eligible to vote, their ballot is counted. Same-day registration has the potential to:

• Increase voter turnout as those who, for whatever reason, failed to register or update their registration by the deadline, can do so
• Open Nevada’s closed partisan primary elections. Voters will be able to change political party affiliation and then vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. An unintended consequence could be an increase in strategic voting, where a voter votes for the worst candidate in the opposing party in hopes their preferred candidate will win in the general election

As positive as SDR is, implementation could have been better. Nevada has a bottom-up registration process. Each county maintains their own database with information then transmitted to the secretary of state. This is the reason for the need of provisional ballots. To correct this, the secretary of state’s office proposed to create a top-down process, having the process managed by the secretary of state with the information then sent down to the counties. This would have required implementation to be 2022 but would have removed the need for provisional ballots. Bill sponsors preferred political expediency rather than doing it right.

Another provision of AB 345 with the potential to boost voter participation is the ability for any voter to request they be provided an absentee mail ballot for all elections rather than having to request such a ballot each time.  Along with changes to when mail ballots are sent to voters (voters must receive them sooner) and allowing ballots to be counted if they are post marked by election day and received by the county clerk / registrar of voters no later than seven days following the election (versus received by close of polls on election day), this change should have a very positive impact on voter participation.

Regardless of the comments above, AVR, SDR, and permanent absentee / mail ballots are positive changes to voting in Nevada that have the potential to increase voter participation. What is most important is to get the word out so voters know about these changes that will make it easier for them to exercise their right to have voice in who represents them at all levels of government.

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

The Nevada legislature adjourned June 3, 2019, ending a busy 120-day session.  At the start of the session, the Democratic caucus published their “2019 Legislative Session Nevada Blueprint”. Included under the heading “A Fair System for All” was “Expand access to the ballot box”. The Republican caucus did not list election or voting in their published priorities. However, in the end, the one clear message was that nothing was “clear”.

Nevadans for Election Reform tracked a total of 29 bills. Some of the outcomes were bipartisan, solving a problem. Some I believe were based on partisanship. A few were perhaps a matter of pride of ownership. Some were impacted by leadership for various reasons.

Problem Solved

AB50 – Introduced by the secretary of state, sought to move odd-year elections in eight Nevada cities to the statewide even year cycle. With turnout routinely below ten percent, this change has been sought in the past to increase voter participation. Surprisingly the bill faced no opposition from the cities, and it passed with broad bipartisan support and was signed by the governor.

AB137 – This bill put forward by Assemblyman Howard Watts originally included items that were being addressed in AB345 (see below). Because of this duplication, the bill was reduced to one point, making any voting location established on an Indian reservation permanent. The bill passed unanimously and was signed by the governor.

AB345 – This bill is listed here with reservation. Introduced as a personal bill by Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, this wide-ranging bill’s primary purpose was to allow for same-day voter registration. There is no question that allowing voters to register or update their registration at the polls increases voter participation. Allowing change in party affiliation at the polls during the primary effectively changes the state’s partisan primaries from closed to semi-open. While I personally do not believe a voter should have to choose a party to be allowed to vote in a publicly funded election, allowing same-day voter registration is a step in the right direction to increasing participation. However, not all is good with this bill. 1) When the Secretary of State’s concerns about increased workload for county election officials and delays up to 10 days in releasing election results were not adequately addressed, the secretary came out in formal opposition. 2) Just as partisanship killed AB259 (addressed below), a provision in AB345 was removed for what I believe is the same reason. The provision would have allowed those 17 years of age who would be 18 before the general election to vote in the primary. Since a 17-year-old is not a legal voter, the provision eliminated the ability of a candidate to be declared the winner of any race in the primary. 3) The bill provides requirements for implementing automatic voter registration (AVR) which was passed by the voters last November. As passed, AVR is supposed to be “automatic” unless the voter opts out in writing. Instead of allowing all steps to be completed at point of service at the DMV, AB345 requires the voter to complete a separate form and drop that form in a secure box located somewhere in the DMV office. This takes the “automatic” out of “automatic”. It also creates a potential that because the form is two-fold, both a declination of registration and a selection of political party, a voter could accidently be recorded as declining registration when all they were doing was declaring a political party. 4) AB345 reduces the amount of information available to voters.  The names of candidates and the office for which they are running, and a condensation of ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments will no longer have to be published in a newspaper. If a county uses only voting centers on election day, the locations of the voting centers are not required to be published the week before the election. The bill does not replace publication with any other means of communicating the information. AB345 is well-intended. However, as the party line votes exemplify, there was not much collaboration. When I refer to “pride of ownership” this is the bill implicated. It is with mixed emotion that I say the governor signed the bill. Hopefully the flaws will be addressed next session.

AB431 – This is another bill that solves a problem but has partisan overtones. AB431 restored the voting rights of ex-felons and was filed by the Speaker. There was not opposition to an ex-felon having their right to vote restored once their sentence, including parole or other requirements, had been completed. That is the way the bill was originally worded. However, the Speaker decided to make it a partisan bill by deleting that requirement and simply restoring voting rights upon release from prison. I spoke with two Republican members of the assembly shortly after the bill was amended and they could not figure out why the Speaker would choose to make a bill with likely unanimous support a partisan issue. Because of the change, the bill passed both chamber committees and the full senate along party lines. Three Republicans voted in the assembly voted in favor.  Governor Sisolak signed the bill.

SB193 – This was a unanimous win for the state as it ensured funding for the “We the People” program that stresses civics and government involvement to all students. Happily, this funding was approved by the governor.

Partisanship

AB99 – This civics education bill introduced by Assembly Minority Leader Jim Wheeler sought to change the American government curriculum taught in Nevada schools by including instruction in the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers. The bill’s conservative leaning should not have surprised anyone. But instead of using this to start a discussion on civics instruction in Nevada schools, the bill was denied a first hearing. 

AB259 – During the 2015 session, SB499 changed the election process, in place for over 50 years, when only one major political party, Democratic or Republican, fielded candidates for a partisan office. The change suppressed the vote of over 50 percent of voters. SB5, during that same session reduced the percentage of voters needed to win election in non-partisan races by allowing a winner to be declared in the lower turnout primary elections. AB259, sponsored by the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections (Nevada Association of Counties introduced a similar bill; AB82, but dropped their efforts in support of AB259) was the second attempt to reverse these voter suppression measures. The first attempt, AB226 during the 2017 session was denied a floor vote in the assembly by Democratic leadership. This session, the bill passed the assembly with bipartisan support but was blocked by Democratic senate leadership and not given a vote in committee.  Hopefully this will come back in 2021. Voter suppression must not be allowed to stand.

SB107, SB118, SB122 – This trio of bills introduced by Senate Minority Leader James Settelmeyer were given what I truly believe was a courtesy hearing the first week of the session but went no further. The most controversial of these bills, SB107, which was co-sponsored by Senator Pete Goicoechea, sought to require a sitting legislator resign before running for another office. This bill was triggered by the candidacy and eventual election of two sitting state senators to Nevada attorney general and Clark County commissioner. Eventually, seven legislators ended up being appointed this session; only one vacancy caused by death. Of the other six, two were caused by resignation following criminal or ethical violations and four by resignation for seeking other office. These seven legislators were appointed by the appropriate county commissions. Voters did not a say. Two of the resignees were actually re-elected to the assembly in the November general election by their constituents then announced their resignation to seek other office. Voters had no say. Following the committee hearing, the bill’s sponsors accepted an amendment proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform to extend the filing deadline when a resignation took place under the provisions of the bill so voters, not seven or five county commissioners selected who represented the district.

SB123 – This same-day voter registration bill introduced by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee turned out to be a face-saver for leadership. The Secretary of State is the only Republican state constitutional officer. In addition to AB50, the secretary filed SB237 dealing with election security and SB449, the office’s omnibus clean-up bill. In what I consider a slap in the face to the Secretary, neither bill was given an initial committee hearing. SB123 being unnecessary due to AB345, leadership saw an opportunity to correct the error, deleted the original language and inserted the language of both SB237 and SB449. The bill passed the senate unanimously and with only one vote against in the assembly and was signed by the governor.

SB333 and SB335 – These two bills sponsored by all eight Republican senators met a partisan death at first deadline. The resignation of Senate Majority Leader Kelvin Atkinson for campaign finance violations brought the need for campaign finance reform to the fore. Waiting two weeks to see if Democratic leadership would come forward with a bill, Republican senators introduced SB333. The bill died without any discussion, however, two days before the end of session, the Senate Majority Leader brought a similar bill, not as strict as SB333. On the final day of the session, the Republican sponsors put forth an amendment to include some of SB333 into the bill. The amendment was defeated on a party line vote. When the bill went to the assembly that same day, the Assembly Majority Leader removed all but a very weak provision; a candidate cannot pay themselves a salary out of campaign funds. Campaign finance reform apparently held no real priority for Democratic leadership. SB335 was meant to ensure all cities and counties allocated their voting locations to allow all voters the opportunity to vote easily and conveniently. Making voting easy and convenient is a standard element in fighting voter suppression. This was not the only voter convenience measure to not make it through the process. (see SB452)

Pride of Ownership

AB269 – Put forward by Assemblyman Alexander Assefa and nine others, this bill proposed changes to the sample ballot process by introducing current technology giving voters easier access to the sample ballot, increasing early voting opportunities, and adding an additional convenience when voting absentee. Despite the large number of sponsors, the bill was not allowed to proceed in committee. Could have been in conflict with AB345.

SB452 – This was another bill addressing absentee ballots, decreasing distribution timelines. The bill was in response to postal time constraints. The bill passed with bipartisan support in the senate and along party lines in the assembly. But a simple voter convenience proposed by Nevadans for Election Reform and adopted by the senate was removed in the assembly committee work session. The proposal would have allowed voters to drop off a completed absentee ballot at any early voting location. The proposal was not opposed by county election officials or any legislator I personally spoke to. The spoken reason the provision was removed was “It would be too much for election workers if same day registration passes.” Perception; conflicted with AB345. Governor Sisolak signed the bill as amended by the assembly.

Leadership

AJR9 – This resolution aimed to tackle the hot button issue of whether or not judges should be elected or appointed. Introduced by the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee the bill passed out of the committee unanimously but was denied a floor vote.

SB450 – This bill sponsored by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee was in response to the attempted recalls of three Democratic state senators last year. It imposes stricter signature collection and verification procedures and makes it more expensive for recall sponsors. This bill is a small band-aid for a big problem. The Nevada constitution allows for the recall of any elected official for any reason. The only way to stop frivolous recall attempts; those initiated simply because opponents did not like the election results or subsequent votes by those elected, is to amend the constitution to require recalls be for cause. When I asked the Senate Majority Leader why a constitutional amendment was not proposed; the majority leader was one of those targeted, her response was simply “It was discussed.” My perception is that Democratic leadership did not want to really strengthen the recall process in case they wanted to turn the tables.

SJR5 – As with nearly every session, the final few weeks is full of last-minute maneuvering and last-minute bills. Public testimony is limited, many votes are “behind the bar” on the chamber floor without any public presence or official written minutes. 120 days is not enough time to realistically handle all what needs to happen. SJR5 introduced by ten Democratic senators once again tried to amend the state constitution to allow for annual sessions. The bill was made exempt following its initial hearing in March, but no other action was taken by the end of the session.

One Other Note

AB186 – Introduced by Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, AB186 was the second attempt to have Nevada join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a group of states exercising their authority under Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution to determine how their presidential electors shall be appointed, agreeing to appoint electors committed to the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationally. During the 2017 session, the bill died in committee without a vote. This session the bill was passed with bipartisan opposition in the assembly and along party lines in the senate. Governor Sisolak vetoed the bill. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the NPVIC and opposition is largely based on emotion rather than fact. The governor’s veto message falls into this group.

Mixed messages. Some good, some bad. Definitely politics at play. 2021 is not that far away.

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

Young people seventeen years of age in Nevada can pre-register to vote.

In doing so they are clearly showing that partisan politics is now in what some call the “end of life stage”, that point where death is immanent. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Ignoring could actually hasten the process. When we know a loved one is near death, we plan for the end.

We know from monthly voter registration reports from the secretary of state’s office, voters 18 – 34 years of age are not enamored with political parties. Nearly 31 percent are registered as Non-Partisan and a total just under 40 percent are not members of either the Democratic or Republican Party. These percentages are 10 percent higher than state-wide numbers. And while the percent registered as Non-Partisan has continuously surpassed the percentage registered in the GOP, September 2018 saw for the first time the percent shunning both major political parties higher than the percent registered as Democratic.  First indicator end of life may be nearing.

Entering end of life. Seventeen-year-old pre-registration is now confirming partisan politics has entered its end of life and all “family members”; political parties, legislators, and older voters, need to start planning.

Pre-registration data is maintained by the counties.

In Washoe County, 582 seventeen-year-olds have pre-registered:

NP – 260 (44.67%)

D – 180 (30.93%

R – 118 (20.28%)

O – 24 (4.12%)

In Clark County, 2,041seventeen-year-olds have pre-registered:

D – 819 (40.13%)

NP – 749 (36.70%)

R – 351 (17.19%)

O – 122 (5.98%)

Of the total 2,623 seventeen-year-olds who have pre-registered to vote, slightly more have registered as Non-Partisan (38.47%) than Democratic (38.08%). The Republican Party is far behind at 17.88%. Combined, the Independent American Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, and any other party account for the remaining 5.57%.

The status quo of politics will no longer work. Low turnout closed partisan primary elections, where a decreasingly small number of party loyalists determine the choice offered to the larger majority will no longer work. Limiting voter choice will no longer work. Legislating by party caucus, refusing to collaborate and truly solve ever-changing problems will no longer work.

Partisan Politics has entered the end of life stage. “Family” needs to start planning. Nevadans for Election Reform has a plan.